Gitignore

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the default model (free) and optional Anthropic probing with BYO key, plus the return format (per-model and combined). This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of four sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, default model, optional Anthropic, return format, and use cases. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and return format. It could mention potential errors or rate limits, but annotations and the description together are sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the default model for the 'models' parameter, the need for '_apiKey' only when probing Anthropic, and how 'context' disambiguates. This enriches the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: probing LLMs to score visibility (0-100) for a given entity. It specifies the verb 'probe', the resource 'LLMs', and the output 'score visibility per model'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on multi-model visibility scoring, unlike 'entity_profile' or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage contexts: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring'. It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to specific sibling tools. The context is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the tool routes to 4,552 tools across 1,160 sources, fills arguments automatically, and returns a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively long but well-structured: priority statement, scope, usage guidelines, alternatives, and examples. It front-loads the key takeaway. Every sentence adds value, though a minor tightening could be possible.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (wide coverage, multiple sources), the description adequately covers when to use, how it works, and return format (structured answer with citations). It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but for a query tool with no output schema, this is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with 6 aliases for the question parameter, each described. The description says 'Your question or request in natural language' but adds minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema's descriptions and examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool routes factual questions to a large set of verified sources, distinguishing it from web search and sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research. It uses specific verb-resource pairs ('Routes the question to...') and provides concrete examples.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidelines are given: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' for factual queries, with detailed examples of when to use (e.g., SEC filings, weather). It also specifies when to step up to alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant answers, deep_research for broad questions) and includes breaking-news routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral details: makes one extra LLM call, extracts answer only from tool result, returns explicit refusal reasons (not_in_source, no_tool_match, etc.). No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is slightly lengthy but front-loaded with key purpose and trade-offs. Every sentence adds value, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, description explicitly lists the return structure (answer, evidence, confidence, etc.) and all possible refusal reasons. This compensates fully and provides complete context for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with all aliases for 'question' described. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema ('Your question in natural language'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads', specifies it routes through the same tools as ask_pipeworx but extracts answer only from tool results, and distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by noting the extra extraction step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and provides examples (financial verdicts, legal claims, etc.). Also advises to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups due to extra cost.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false—all consistent. Description goes far beyond annotations, detailing behaviors like blocking on low-confidence matches or closed markets, tradeability warnings for wide spreads, resolution-rule risk parsing, and cancellation rule handling. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured with clear sections (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, etc.). Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but the organization makes it easy to parse. No unnecessary repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly details response structure (result.market, result.analysis, result.evidence, parent_event, news fields), edge cases (low-confidence blocking, closed markets, wide spreads), and safety mechanisms. Covers resolution-rule risk and cancellation handling. Extremely complete for a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for 3 parameters. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining how market input is resolved (slug/URL/question), how depth affects fans-out (quick vs thorough), and when to use include_raw (false for compact responses, true for full payloads). Adds nuance not in schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it researches Polymarket bets by pulling Pipeworx data. Specifies inputs (slug, URL, question), process (resolves, classifies, fans out), and outputs (evidence packet + comparison). Distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on data retrieval rather than edge detection or arbitrage.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z"'. Provides clear usage context. No explicit exclusions, but the description implies appropriate use cases. Also advises checking market_match_confidence before trusting analysis, which guides agent behavior.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Describes data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA/clinicaltrials for drugs), sorting behavior, handling of off-calendar fiscal years, and return format (paired data + citation URIs). This adds significant context beyond the annotations which already mark it as read-only and idempotent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with front-loaded example queries, followed by data source details and return format. A bit dense but every sentence earns its place. Could be slightly more concise but still effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (paired data, sorted by primary metric, with citation URIs). It covers scope, behavior for each type, limitations (max 5 entities), and replaces many sequential lookups. An AI agent would know exactly when and how to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters (type and values) are fully described in the schema. The description adds concrete details: for 'type' it explains what data is fetched per enum value; for 'values' it specifies format (tickers/CIKs vs drug names) and min/max constraints. This is valuable beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs, with specific examples of triggering phrases ('X vs Y', 'which is bigger'). It distinguishes from sequential single-pack lookups and presumably from sibling tools like 'entity_profile'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly advises to prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities. Provides examples of when to use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternative sibling tools by name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation itself, such as the precise format of the output (headers separating templates), but does not elaborate on internal behavior or edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that starts with the action verb, immediately conveying the tool's purpose. It contains no superfluous words and is appropriately brief for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one well-documented parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description sufficiently covers the core behavior. It could be slightly enhanced by mentioning that templates come from a predefined set, but this is not essential for basic usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'names' parameter, which includes an example and description. The tool description does not add additional semantic information beyond stating 'multiple templates' and the output format; it relies on the schema to convey parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'compose' and resource 'combined .gitignore from multiple templates', and highlights key output trait 'separated by headers'. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which deal with .gitignore composition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (combining .gitignore templates) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide conditions for non-use. No guidance on prerequisites or fallback options.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description details the output format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, gaps), latency (15-60s), and that it decomposes questions and routes to 4,552 tools in parallel. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy but well-structured. Critical info (account required, alternative tools) is front-loaded. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more terse without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with many siblings, the description covers prerequisites, behavior, input details, output format, limitations, and expected latency. No output schema exists, but the description explains the return format sufficiently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the depth enum values (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and that question is natural language with automatic decomposition, improving understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is very specific: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1160 STRUCTURED data sources' with a clear verb (research) and resource (structured data sources). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx, making it easy to select.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when not to (single lookup, breaking news). It provides alternative tools (ask_pipeworx) and notes the account tiers, giving clear usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that it returns top-N results with full schemas and curated examples, ready to call directly without a second lookup. This enriches the behavioral model.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence adds value. The description is front-loaded with purpose, lists supported domains, explains return value, and gives guidance on when to call. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return format (names, descriptions, schemas). It covers purpose, usage, and behavior comprehensively given the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant parameter-specific detail beyond what's in the schema, but it provides usage examples that contextualize the query parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool finds tools by describing data or task. It lists specific categories (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specific actions like ask_pipeworx or deep_research.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to call this FIRST when many tools are available and you want to see the option set. Provides a clear use case, though it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: fans out across multiple sources, returns specific fields, patent sunset with soft-fail, and name limitation. This adds context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Justifies its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (multiple data sources, return fields), the description is fairly complete: lists returned data, parameter requirements, limitations, and fallback behavior. No output schema but sufficient for agent to understand expected output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters. The description reinforces the 'type' enum limitation and clarifies 'value' expects ticker or zero-padded CIK, adding nuance about name unsupported. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It specifies the data sources and returned fields, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like resolve_entity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' Also clearly states when not to use: 'Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already give destructiveHint=true, so the description's deletion context adds value beyond annotations by specifying use cases. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no wasted words. Highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and full annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and pairing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter (key). The description does not add further details beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete a previously stored memory by key') and distinguishes it from siblings like remember (store) and recall (retrieve).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly provides when to use: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data' and pairs with remember and recall for context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context about fetching and extracting, which aligns with annotations and provides additional behavioral insight.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, description is complete: explains function, output format, and use cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. Description adds no further parameter details, only reiterates the tool's process. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it generates a llms.txt file for any URL, with specific verb+resource and details on what it extracts and outputs. Distinguishes from sibling tools by describing its unique purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Lists specific use cases (indexing client site, drafting for own project, auditing competitor) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds value beyond the annotations by specifying case-sensitivity and that the output is raw content, which confirms the read-only and idempotent nature. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense sentence that includes the verb, resource, key constraint (case-sensitive), and examples. No wasted words, and it is immediately clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and the output nature. No information gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage, the description enhances the parameter by adding case-sensitivity and examples (e.g., 'Node', 'Python'), which are not in the schema's property description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'fetch', the resource 'raw .gitignore content', and provides specific details like case-sensitivity and examples. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_templates' by focusing on retrieving content for a specific template.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool (to fetch .gitignore content) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like 'list_templates' for listing. However, for a single-parameter get operation, the usage is straightforward and clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds return fields and default behavior (active vs inactive), enhancing transparency without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, followed by concise usage guidance. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description lists return fields (compensating for missing output schema) and usage context. Annotations cover safety. Complete enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage 100% and schema already describes the parameter and its default. Description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe, unsubscribe, list_templates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance to use for reviewing subscriptions before adding more or finding an id to cancel. Does not mention alternatives but context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds source detail but no new behavioral traits beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with no waste; perfectly concise and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and presence of output schema, description is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters; description adds meaning by explaining what the tool lists, which is not evident from empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb 'list' and resource '.gitignore template names from github/gitignore', distinguishing from sibling 'get_template'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_template', though it is implied for listing before selecting a template.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, and doesn't count against quota. Annotations are all false, so description carries the burden and does so well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at 4 sentences, with clear front-loading of purpose followed by when, how, and behavioral notes. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple feedback tool, the description provides complete context: purpose, usage, behavioral constraints, and parameter guidance. No output schema needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining enum values in detail and advising on message specificity and length, earning a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: sending feedback about broken, missing, or needed things. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which are feedback-related.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use conditions are given for bug, feature/data_gap, and praise. Also provides guidance on how to phrase feedback (in terms of tools/packs, not end-user prompts) and mentions rate limits.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: data derived from CF analytics-engine, no PII, just (pack, tool, count), and cached 5min-1h depending on window. This goes beyond annotations by explaining data provenance and caching, thus earning a 4.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with 4-5 well-structured sentences. The use of bullet points for use cases makes it scannable. Every sentence adds information: purpose, use cases, data nature, caching. No redundant or wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only one optional parameter with full schema coverage, and annotations fully cover safety profile, the description provides enough context. It mentions return content (top tools, top packs, total call volume) but lacks detailed output structure or error cases. However, since there is no output schema, this is acceptable. Scores 4 for being nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description repeats the enum values. However, it adds semantic value by explaining 'Shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.' This interpretation goes beyond the bare schema, raising the score from baseline 3 to 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window, with a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'what other AI agents are calling on Pipeworx'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'discover_tools' by focusing on trending signal and call volume, fulfilling the 'differentiates from siblings' criterion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides three use cases: discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, and checking alignment with agent needs. It also explains the caching behavior and the nature of the data (self-aggregating, no PII). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond implicit differentiation, so scores a 4.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint). It details internal behavior: scanning top 200 markets, walking child markets, date-axis/threshold-axis ordering, partition_check sum, semantic anchor with Jaccard similarity, partition filter for placeholder slugs, and fill check against live CLOB depth. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured into logical sections (modes, semantic anchor, partition filter, fill check). Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability. Minor reduction could be possible, but the detail is justified by the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers behavior, input, and output. It describes the response structure (opportunities array, partition_check, fill check) and even references a sibling tool for custom sizing. Without an output schema, this level of detail is necessary and sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds significant context: explains that 'event' is for single-event mode and 'topic' for cross-event mode, provides example slugs and seed questions, and clarifies that no args triggers a trending scan. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between two modes (event and topic) and provides specific examples. Among sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk, this tool uniquely focuses on partition and monotonicity arbitrage.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: no args for trending scan, 'event' for a specific market, 'topic' for cross-event scanning. It recommends event for strongest per-event check and explains the rationale for cross-event mode. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool, but the guidance is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds extensive behavioral context: three model families, edge calculation (including edge_pp_net after slippage, kelly fractions, 24h-move warning), tradeable-edge knobs, response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics), and caching. There is no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy but well-structured with sections for each model family and knobs. The front loads the core purpose. While some technical detail could be condensed, the density is justified by the tool's complexity (9 parameters, multiple segments, diagnostics).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (by_segment with three segments, fed_candidates, _diagnostics), edge attributes, and caching. It covers all aspects an agent needs to invoke and interpret results, including why Fed bets are excluded.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description enhances understanding by explaining how knobs interact (e.g., min_partition_leg_kelly vs min_kelly, slippage_pp vs zero fees) and provides concrete defaults and use-case guidance for each parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool scans Polymarket markets and returns opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It explicitly positions the tool for daily betting discovery, distinguishing it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_kalshi_spread.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the tool is built for 'what should I bet on today' and provides knobs for filtering. It implicitly contrasts with arbitrage siblings but does not explicitly say when not to use this tool. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it reads from daily snapshots, explains the 60-day TTL and start-from-enabling constraint, and describes how derived trends and decay are computed. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the core question. It follows a clear structure: purpose, arguments, response fields, limits. However, it is somewhat verbose and could be tightened without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by detailing every part of the response (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]). It also covers limits (60-day TTL, start from enabling, daily closes not intraday). For a tool with 2 optional parameters, this is comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'days' (lookback, default 14, max 30) and 'window' (snapshot family, default '1wk'), but this information largely overlaps with the schema descriptions. No additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers the core question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?', distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges which likely show current edges.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit context: 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades...' It explains what the response contains and includes LIMITS on history depth. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the contrast with polymarket_edges is implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it walks the order-book ladder, returns fill metrics, and warns that partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position ('the dominant loss mode'). No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is roughly 300 words, front-loaded with purpose and modes, then returns, then usage guidelines. It is dense but well-structured. A slight trim could be possible, but every sentence adds necessary context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so thoroughly for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc. for single-market; theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk for basket). Given the tool's complexity, this is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter interplay: requiring one of `market` or `event`, default values, and how `size_usd` is interpreted differently in single-market vs basket mode. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It explicitly distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, listing specific return fields. This differentiates it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains the rationale (theoretical overround not capturable on thin books, partial baskets creating directional risk), giving clear when-to-use and why.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: spread ranges, compatibility_warning conditions, temporal alignment, and skipped comparison counters, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but efficient, front-loading the main purpose and then systematically covering modes, response fields, and safety fields. Every sentence is informative; no redundancy. Could benefit from more structure (e.g., bullet points) but is still well-organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains return values (leg prices, spread, safety fields). It covers all essential aspects: modes, compatibility warnings, temporal alignment, and skipped comparisons. The description is remarkably complete for a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the macro shortcuts, override behavior, and the relationship between topic and explicit parameters. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool computes the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like 'polymarket_arbitrage' by focusing on cross-venue comparison.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains two modes (topic and explicit tickers) and provides extensive guidance on interpreting compatibility warnings and temporal alignment. It lacks explicit contrast with sibling tools but still offers clear context for when to use each mode.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: scoping (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, account ID) and pairing with remember and forget, going beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise sentences with no wasted words, front-loads the main action, and each sentence adds distinct value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains behavior, scope, and usage patterns, making it complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'key', and the description clarifies the optional nature and behavior when omitted (list all keys), adding meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' or 'list' and the resource 'saved values/keys', and distinguishes from siblings 'remember' and 'forget' by explicitly naming them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear examples of when to use (look up context like ticker, address, notes) but does not explicitly state when not to use, though it implies use for retrieval rather than modification.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that mark_read:true flags events as read so subsequent calls only return newer ones, and it lists the fields returned. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then detailing return fields and parameter behavior. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is an excellent example of conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and how mark_read affects state. It also mentions an alternative endpoint for scripts/dashboards. Minor omissions like default ordering or pagination details are acceptable for this use case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter already described. The description adds extra meaning for key parameters: e.g., 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones' provides a behavioral insight not present in the schema. This elevates the value above the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a clear verb+resource pair: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It specifies that it returns the most recent alerts with particular fields (source, citation_uri, raw event payload), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states that 'Polls work fine' and gives an alternative method 'the same feed is also at GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json for scripts and dashboards,' providing context on when to use the tool vs. direct HTTP access. It also mentions filtering options but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name specific sibling alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it fans out to SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO with a fallback and soft-fail behavior. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately concise, front-loaded with examples, and every sentence adds information. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for sources), but overall it is clear and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (3 required params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return value ('structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs'), the multi-source behavior, and distinguishes from the sibling. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: it explains the `since` parameter accepts ISO dates and relative shorthand with examples like '7d', '30d', '3m', '1y', and recommends '30d' or '1m' for monitoring. It also clarifies that `value` can be a ticker or CIK and that `type` is only 'company'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with explicit example queries and states 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call,' clearly specifying the verb (get changes), resource (company), and scope (multi-source, time window). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling entity_profile tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...' and explains the fallback behavior for news (GDELT→GNews). It implies the tool is for 'what's new' queries but does not give exhaustive when-not-to-use scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds persistence details: authenticated users get persistent memory, anonymous 24-hour retention. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple key-value store with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: explains scope, lifetime, and pairing with recall/forget.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds examples for key naming conventions and clarifies value can be any text, adding meaning beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool saves data for reuse across conversations/sessions, with examples. Distinguishes from sibling tools recall and forget.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use (discover something worth carrying forward) and when not to (alternatives for retrieval/deletion). Provides context for persistence differences.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world traits. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals that each call 'cascades through several lookup endpoints internally' and explains the output structure for both entity types, providing transparency beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with example queries and clearly separates the general purpose from type-specific details. Though slightly lengthy, every sentence adds information without redundancy. Minor structural improvement could be to condense the type descriptions, but overall well-organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two entity types, hidden internal lookups, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, what each type returns (including citation URIs), and how it replaces multiple steps. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters. The description enhances meaning by specifying auto-disambiguation for company names, acceptable input formats (ticker, CIK, company name; brand or generic drug name), and outlining the expected return fields. This adds practical value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's verb ('resolve') and resource ('user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifier'), with specific examples for each supported entity type. It effectively distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'entity_profile' and 'compare_entities' by focusing on identifier lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly directs to 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' providing clear usage context. While it doesn't list when not to use or name alternatives, the guidance is strong and unambiguous for the primary use case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent. Description adds that it delegates to ai_visibility_check and returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then process, then example. No fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but description details output format. Mentions internal tool. Parameter count 4 all explained. Missing potential error details but adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% coverage; description enriches semantics: entities first entry is 'subject', context disambiguates, models notes default and api key requirement. Adds value beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' with specific verbs 'compare', 'probes', 'ranks'. Differentiates from sibling tool ai_visibility_check by focusing on multiple entities. Not a tautology.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides concrete use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and implies alternative of using ai_visibility_check individually. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or exclusions, but context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds beyond: explains fan-out to two services, potential 5-30s delay from bundlephobia, graceful degradation via 'sources_failed', and detailed return structure. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, each sentence adds value (behavior, return format, edge cases, limitations). No fluff or redundancy; appropriately detailed for a composite tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates return fields (summary block with 9 fields, per-advisory details, links, alternatives). Covers partial failure, ecosystem limitation, and timing behavior. Fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the existing parameter descriptions in the schema are already detailed (e.g., defaults to latest version, scoped packages accepted). The tool description repeats this information without adding significant new semantics, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the composite purpose: evaluating an npm package for safety, popularity, and size in one call. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's for npm packages only and lists the exact services used.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: when an agent asks about npm package safety/size/cost. Also tells when not to use: only NPM ecosystem in v1, with alternatives mentioned (PyPI, Maven, etc. use deps.dev directly).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond readOnlyHint annotations, it adds specifics: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation and flagging.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single paragraph of 3 sentences, front-loaded with main action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, when to use, technical details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, usage, technical details (embeddings, windowing, cap), pairing with sibling, and what is returned (passages with offsets and scores). Complete for a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds: text max chars, limit default/range, query examples like 'supply-chain risk'. Significantly enriches meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it performs semantic search inside a fetched record, with specific verb 'search within' and resource 'text inside a record'. Distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and contrasts with ask_pipeworx_grounded for pairing pattern.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description indicates creation of a new subscription each call, contradicting the idempotentHint=true annotation, as repeated calls would create multiple subscriptions. Annotations lack detail, and description adds some constraints (OAuth needed) but fails to address the idempotency mismatch. Annotation contradiction detected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is well-structured with separate sections for types and delivery, and front-loads the main purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose with extensive examples, which could be trimmed without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Comprehensive coverage: explains subscription creation, required OAuth account, return value (new id), all type-specific params, delivery channels with limitations, and prerequisites. No output schema but description fills the gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: examples for each type (e.g., sec_8k with items codes), detailed delivery channel explanations (webhook HMAC signing), and constraints (sms phone must be verified). Adds substantial value beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream. The verb 'subscribe' and resource 'alerts' are clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_subscriptions or unsubscribe.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context: requires Pipeworx OAuth account, describes supported types and delivery channels, and notes limitations like SMS 10/day cap. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes) and mentioning the live catalog of thousands of tools. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a list-like format for categories. It is informative but slightly lengthy; could be tightened without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return value: category-bucketed example questions with tool+argument shapes. It also covers behavior with and without the optional parameter, making it complete for a simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% but the description enriches the parameter meaning by listing the specific topic values (finance, pharma, etc.) and clarifying that omitting the parameter yields a cross-category spread. This goes beyond the schema's generic description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as an onboarding entry point that returns categorized example questions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it is for initial exploration, not for direct querying, and even mentions meta-tools like ask_pipeworx.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do' and 'to learn how to call the meta-tools'. Also provides guidance on arguments (no args for full spread, topic to focus), implying when not to use it (when a specific question is known).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical context: the row is deactivated, not deleted, and historical events remain via 'recent_alerts'. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then behavioral details. No extra words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains the effect (deactivation) and links to the subscription source and related tool ('recent_alerts'). Adequate and mostly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the 'id' parameter fully (100% coverage, including source from 'subscribe'). The description does not add new info about the parameter, meeting baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Cancel a subscription by id' and distinguishes it from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by mentioning ownership enforcement and the non-destructive nature.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states that ownership is enforced — 'you can only cancel your own subscriptions' — providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, though sibling tools are available.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it details the verdict types (confirmed, refuted, etc.), extracted structured form, actual value with citation, and percent delta, and explains it replaces multiple sequential calls. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose and usage cues. Every sentence adds value, from examples to scope indication, with no redundant or vague language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains return values (verdict, structured form, actual value, citation, delta). Input is well-described, and the tool's limited scope is acknowledged. The context signals indicate low complexity, so coverage is excellent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single parameter, the description enriches the semantics by providing multiple examples ('Apple's FY2024 revenue...') and clarifying the natural-language format, going well beyond the schema's description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly defines the tool as a natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific verb phrases like 'fact check' and examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it replaces multiple sequential calls, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides natural-language patterns. It implicitly limits scope to company-financial claims via 'v1 supports', but does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternative sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.